• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Which of the 3 main founders of Sociology do you agree with...


Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
6,080
Twitter
crimesofbrits
or disagree with?

Sociology is one of my favorite subjects and one I have taken great interest in the last year or so. Often regarded as a left wing conspiracy - especially by one poster who farts 'loony lefties' - two of the founding fathers of Sociology were, arguably, more to the right. Regardless, it is a subject that I feel should be on the Leaving Certificate as I believe it would interest many students, even the most apathetic.

Comte is the man who came up with the word sociology and probably should be in with Marx, Durkheim and Weber. However, the three just mentioned are regarded as the main founders of Sociology. So, my question is: Who do you most relate to and believe was correct about the functioning of human beings?

For some who are not familiar with the subject or the thinkers, a quick summary of the views of the three is needed. I'll really try and terse, something I'm garbage at.

Durkheim - Functionalism

Durkheim wanted to comprehend how society functioned. One of his major contributions to Sociology was Mechanical and Organic solidarity. This concept leads on to his views on why people commit suicide (anomie) and crucially, division of labor.

Mechanical solidarity basically means what holds society together. Durkheim believed this was the case in pre-industrial times as most people shared similar jobs and this lead to a collective conscience. People also had similar customs and values set in place which resulted in a social glue.

When, during the industrial revolution and the division of labor, as people began to become more skilled and work in different jobs, things changed rapidly and the complexities of capitalism lead to a new form of solidarity, organic. This was mainly because of a division of labor in society, as people were now more reliant on others, such as specialized workers. Instead of people being dependent on others they knew (working in Feudal times, everyone doing the same jobs, same rewards, etc) they were now relying on others they did not know, and the general accord was replaced with functional interdependence. When capitalism really took off in the 19th century, its rights did not penetrate to all who lived in it. Because of this, according to Durkheim, many ended up feeling isolated, bored, and living a life unfulfilled. This is where Durkheim's suicide theory comes in, as when people where living in a organic solidarity, many thought of life as worthless and having no meaning.

There is more to be said on division of labor and suicide, but that is a very basic explanation of them. Durkheim also believed that religion was played a crucial part in peoples' lives, and had many positive aspects. He believed it was necessary in society and created boundaries, customs and rules that have helped society. Obviously, each religion is different, but according to Durkheim, they all have the same effects on people:

  • Religion is part of the socialisation process, creating norms and values
  • Religious system of beliefs help people by filling up their needs and giving them a purpose in life
  • Religion gives people a social identity
  • Religion brings human beings together

Karl Marx - Class Conflict

Now I understand that any discussion about this man is completely futile as every myth about him will be brought up, from he wanted dictatorships, he was utopian, he wanted to kill all capitalists, etc. However, just to go over his views.

Marx believed that there were two classes in conflict with each other: bourgeois and proletariat. The former held the means of production and the latter was forced to sell their labor to them (which leads on to a whole host of other things). These two classes are in conflict with each other over wealth and exploitation. Workers are being exploited because they are forced to sell their labor and their labor power (they're energy, creativity, etc). Whereas the bourgeois grow fat off of the labor of the workers. Although both need each other, the exploitation of the workers is, in Marx's view, completely wrong and he predicted that workers would rise up and overthrow capitalism.

Marx borrowed a lot from Hegel and others and elaborated on them. He believed that the capitalist system alienated workers from themselves, each other, their work and the things they produce. This leads on to a development of fetishism of commodities and more. Marx took aim at religion for its help in keeping people subjugated.

Marx viewed religion as a way to keep people in line. Rather than rise up and fight for better conditions, religion offered people a better world in the afterlife. Marx saw this is folly and attacked religion for keeping people down and conforming to the system they are in.

Max Weber - Social Action Theory

Weber believed that in pre-industrial societies, people had a complete set of different values. As times moved on and with industrialisation, people moved on with their beliefs and customs. They began to think carefully about the consequences of their actions in the future. Society is formed by the way people interact with each other. Religion is of course, a key element in this interaction.

His biggest contribution arguably is his view that religion is central to what way a society acts. He did this by touring different parts of the world and concluding that religions such as Hinduism, Islam and Catholicism were not right for the development of capitalism, unlike Protestantism. He did not mean that capitalism was Protestantism, he mean't that Protestantism in a capitalist society was more suited. In his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber outlines how Calvinism did not teach people to acquiesce and accept their role in life, unlike the caste system, for example.

Weber believed it was no coincidence that western European countries who were Protestant lead the way in their development of industrial capitalism. John Calvin preached about saving, investing and that it was a duty to God to work hard. Living your life like that will lead to salvation.

Apologies if I have did a disservice to your favorite sociologist, I did only say I would be terse and I haven't even touched on some of their, in my opinion, more interesting views on the family, particularly Marx's. Personally, I tend to agree with all three. I think Durkheim's division of labor is crucial in its analysis of suicide, even today. The same with Marx and alienation because of labor. Anyway, do you agree with one, two or all three or do you thoroughly disagree with all of them?

The political philosophy forum is probably the only forum that is troll free. I have a feeling this will be moved to that forum by Cato. I only did not start it in that forum because you can't and I couldn't be arsed Pming, so apologies in advance.
 


james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503
I seriously doubt it'll be on theleaving Cert. Introducing ideas that question strongly held, fundamental ideas would be out of the question.
 
Last edited:

Mr Aphorisms

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
6,080
Twitter
crimesofbrits
I seriously doubt it'll be on the Leaving Cert. Introducing ideas that question strongly held, fundamental ideas would be out of the question.
Is it not in the department's mind, along with politics as a new subject?
 

Colin M

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
5,350
Do elaborate.
OK - I am not so familiar with Durkheim, but you just have to look at the North to see two religions with only minor differences ,consistently sniping at each other. So much for his solidarity selling point.

Marx for not considering that capitalism and industrial growth allowed for more comfortable living standards for a new middle-class. Not that capitalism is everything, mind. He's pretty much spot on with religion, in fairness to the man.

A country like Japan and how 'well' we know it does capitalism (at least in the production aspect), makes Weber's argument look light. Not many protestants over in Japan, of course.

I think the leading socioligists are really good salesman, more than truth tellers. Sorry if you don't like to hear that.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,621
I never heard of the division of labour before but it seems very plausible. I would disagree with Durkheim on the role of religion as I do not believe that Religion has a monopoly on values.

Marx observed some genuine grievances but unfortunatly only looks to one aspect of the conflict to make a solution. Very unrealistic. Agree largely with his religious point.
 

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
or disagree with?

Sociology is one of my favorite subjects and one I have taken great interest in the last year or so. Often regarded as a left wing conspiracy - especially by one poster who farts 'loony lefties' - two of the founding fathers of Sociology were, arguably, more to the right. Regardless, it is a subject that I feel should be on the Leaving Certificate as I believe it would interest many students, even the most apathetic.

Comte is the man who came up with the word sociology and probably should be in with Marx, Durkheim and Weber. However, the three just mentioned are regarded as the main founders of Sociology. So, my question is: Who do you most relate to and believe was correct about the functioning of human beings?

For some who are not familiar with the subject or the thinkers, a quick summary of the views of the three is needed. I'll really try and terse, something I'm garbage at.

Durkheim - Functionalism

Durkheim wanted to comprehend how society functioned. One of his major contributions to Sociology was Mechanical and Organic solidarity. This concept leads on to his views on why people commit suicide (anomie) and crucially, division of labor.

Mechanical solidarity basically means what holds society together. Durkheim believed this was the case in pre-industrial times as most people shared similar jobs and this lead to a collective conscience. People also had similar customs and values set in place which resulted in a social glue.

When, during the industrial revolution and the division of labor, as people began to become more skilled and work in different jobs, things changed rapidly and the complexities of capitalism lead to a new form of solidarity, organic. This was mainly because of a division of labor in society, as people were now more reliant on others, such as specialized workers. Instead of people being dependent on others they knew (working in Feudal times, everyone doing the same jobs, same rewards, etc) they were now relying on others they did not know, and the general accord was replaced with functional interdependence. When capitalism really took off in the 19th century, its rights did not penetrate to all who lived in it. Because of this, according to Durkheim, many ended up feeling isolated, bored, and living a life unfulfilled. This is where Durkheim's suicide theory comes in, as when people where living in a organic solidarity, many thought of life as worthless and having no meaning.

There is more to be said on division of labor and suicide, but that is a very basic explanation of them. Durkheim also believed that religion was played a crucial part in peoples' lives, and had many positive aspects. He believed it was necessary in society and created boundaries, customs and rules that have helped society. Obviously, each religion is different, but according to Durkheim, they all have the same effects on people:

  • Religion is part of the socialisation process, creating norms and values
  • Religious system of beliefs help people by filling up their needs and giving them a purpose in life
  • Religion gives people a social identity
  • Religion brings human beings together

Karl Marx - Class Conflict

Now I understand that any discussion about this man is completely futile as every myth about him will be brought up, from he wanted dictatorships, he was utopian, he wanted to kill all capitalists, etc. However, just to go over his views.

Marx believed that there were two classes in conflict with each other: bourgeois and proletariat. The former held the means of production and the latter was forced to sell their labor to them (which leads on to a whole host of other things). These two classes are in conflict with each other over wealth and exploitation. Workers are being exploited because they are forced to sell their labor and their labor power (they're energy, creativity, etc). Whereas the bourgeois grow fat off of the labor of the workers. Although both need each other, the exploitation of the workers is, in Marx's view, completely wrong and he predicted that workers would rise up and overthrow capitalism.

Marx borrowed a lot from Hegel and others and elaborated on them. He believed that the capitalist system alienated workers from themselves, each other, their work and the things they produce. This leads on to a development of fetishism of commodities and more. Marx took aim at religion for its help in keeping people subjugated.

Marx viewed religion as a way to keep people in line. Rather than rise up and fight for better conditions, religion offered people a better world in the afterlife. Marx saw this is folly and attacked religion for keeping people down and conforming to the system they are in.

Max Weber - Social Action Theory

Weber believed that in pre-industrial societies, people had a complete set of different values. As times moved on and with industrialisation, people moved on with their beliefs and customs. They began to think carefully about the consequences of their actions in the future. Society is formed by the way people interact with each other. Religion is of course, a key element in this interaction.

His biggest contribution arguably is his view that religion is central to what way a society acts. He did this by touring different parts of the world and concluding that religions such as Hinduism, Islam and Catholicism were not right for the development of capitalism, unlike Protestantism. He did not mean that capitalism was Protestantism, he mean't that Protestantism in a capitalist society was more suited. In his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber outlines how Calvinism did not teach people to acquiesce and accept their role in life, unlike the caste system, for example.

Weber believed it was no coincidence that western European countries who were Protestant lead the way in their development of industrial capitalism. John Calvin preached about saving, investing and that it was a duty to God to work hard. Living your life like that will lead to salvation.

Apologies if I have did a disservice to your favorite sociologist, I did only say I would be terse and I haven't even touched on some of their, in my opinion, more interesting views on the family, particularly Marx's. Personally, I tend to agree with all three. I think Durkheim's division of labor is crucial in its analysis of suicide, even today. The same with Marx and alienation because of labor. Anyway, do you agree with one, two or all three or do you thoroughly disagree with all of them?

The political philosophy forum is probably the only forum that is troll free. I have a feeling this will be moved to that forum by Cato. I only did not start it in that forum because you can't and I couldn't be arsed Pming, so apologies in advance.
MAX WEBER by far. He had a profound impact on the early Austrian school economists.
 
Last edited:

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
A 'sociology' which doesn't ground itself in the dignity of man 'a priori', grounds him in a tiresome and unfullfiling grind.

Rinse and repeat.
 

pragmaticapproach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
8,817
A 'sociology' which doesn't ground itself in the dignity of man 'a priori', grounds him in a tiresome and unfullfiling grind.

Rinse and repeat.
Care to elaborate?
 

storybud1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
6,713
Read Edward De Bono (he is really full of himself) but sociology and psychology are just measuring skills, they do not come up with solutions or forward thinking.

Information is not as controlled as before and the internet is live ? this is changing everything. We have yet to grow up and figure out how it affects us, education will change as the internet means that kids who fall behind can easily catch up, having money is no longer an advantage to get a better education.
 

Kev408

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
5,123
Sociology has evolved hugely since those three lads (you left out Spencer btw). Gramsci, Pateman, Bourdieu and many, many others have made huge contributions to what is now known as the science of Sociology. Sociology is the glue that holds together the influences of such societal phenomena as equality, law and order, educational issues/systems and loads more. Frankly, it would be almost impossible to deal with the theories of Durkheim, Weber and Marx (not to mention Comte, and the others above) on a chat website. Their contributions are too vast and it has to be remembered they spoke and wrote their theories relevant to the times they lived in.

To answer your question I would have to say 'none of the above'. It would be too simplistic to pick one when Sociology has evolved so much, when many (not all obviously) of their theories overlap with similar main points, and when different societies have evolved differently (or not) in terms of values, culture, religious beliefs, political structure, class differences and on and on and on.
 

Kev408

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
5,123
A 'sociology' which doesn't ground itself in the dignity of man 'a priori', grounds him in a tiresome and unfullfiling grind.

Rinse and repeat.
Did you mean 'society' instead of 'sociology'?
 

satanclaus88

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
24
Gobinau, Spengler- the decline of the West, Yockey's imperium are very good.
But Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf truly is excellent for his utopian vision, and understanding of the animalism of man, which was superseded by christianized imagination and scientific reason.
I really can't recommend that book enough. It's ironic that they force Marx down the throat of students when marxism is responsible for the deaths of 150 million.And yet they've done it so succesfully the students are actually socialized into thinking that's acceptable - whereas Adolf's more natural idea of National Socialism for a race as opposed to international socialism is seen as utter taboo. I'm sure most of you are having pavlovian responses right now, and all the old stereotypes are flooding your minds but still do check it out. And also check out Carl Jungs essay called Wotan, which looks at how the different races have different collective unconciousness and different archetypes/Gods. It was Jungs contention that the God of the Germans was Wotan and that Hitler was an einherjar of Wotan.
 

TimBuckII

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
2,524
Twitter
Yes I am
Karl Marx. Definitely. Society is structured to maintain the staus quo.
Which Status Quo - Yours or mine?

Bear in mind that yesterday I was a millionaire living in a Democracy today I'm homeless and in debt living in a Dictatorship. My brother has been middle class all week and my sister the Comunist has just been born again.

As to the OP

Personally, I tend to agree with all three
Me too and probably equally disagree.
It's a big world with many different societies all over lapping into eachother. There are positive and negative examples to almost anything.

It's an endless argument i think. Unless you change 'society' in general to 'a society' in particular and make comparisons.
 
Last edited:

ManUnited

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,221
Which Status Quo - Yours or mine?

Bear in mind that yesterday I was a millionaire living in a Democracy today I'm homeless and in debt living in a Dictatorship. My brother has been middle class all week and my sister the Comunist has just been born again.

As to the OP



Me too and probably equally disagree.
It's a big world with many different societies all over lapping into eachother. There are positive and negative examples to almost anything.

It's an endless argument i think. Unless you change 'society' in general to 'a society' in particular and make comparisons.
At the moment the capitalist status quo. Who knows what is coming next, but one thing is for sure, capitalism will go the way of all the isms before it. When that happens society will be geared towards maintaining the new order. Just as it always has in the past.
Sociology is a major field of study undertaken all over the world. Comparing societies is what they do. The theories in the OP are considered the leading ones precisely because academics from all over, and for a couple of hundred years, have found them applicable. Social science ( an oxymoron if I ever heard one) theories are more like a lens to look through, as opposed to natural science theories which attempt to give definitive descriptions of things. You wont hear anyone say 'you canna break the laws of sociology captain'.
 

Troy_337

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
614
It might be interesting to know what the sociologists like Weber, Marx, and Durkheim had to say about overpopulation.
 

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top